Reply to Archdeacon Farrar's excursus in eternal hope [microform]

REPLY TO

V-

ARCHDEACON FARRAR'S EXCURSUS

,,/■■?• . •■■

ERRATA. .V

Page 30. line 2, for " preisumptive," read " presumptuous."

31 "24 " "Judacio," • " " Judaioo."

32 " 3 '• "Aut," ■ " "Ant."
" considering "
" young ruler"

47 " 22, after " blasphemous " supply " thought."
51 tmnsjx)se first and second paragraphs.

" 40 " 22 "
" 45 " 21 "

" " consideration."
" " lawyer."

--■-•fe

MONTREAL :

DAWSON BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS.

1^4.

KEPLY TO

^

ARCHDEACON FARRAR'S EXCURSUS

.;,3 '■„ .,v ••

m

ETERNAL HOPE.

..■: • v^r--

BY

'A '- ■;

W. HENDERSON, M. A., T.C.D., *

CANOK AND PBINCIFAL OF THE DIOCESAN THEOLOGIOAL COLLEGE, MONTREAL.

»' liir , ^ii-

MONTREAL : "
DAWSON BROTHERS, PUBLISHE^LS.
1884.

■;:'

Entered according to Act of Parliament of Canada, in the year 1884, in
the Office of the Minister of Agriculture, by Dawson Brothers,
Montreal.

«".:.

GAZETTE PRINTING CO., MONTREAL.

^^ PREFACE. : .

''-'-'-' . ■■ ■ , " --*.;■' "■ ■ ".'. '''■-■

• -•:■.'.-*.

The following is a reply to the request made
by the Students of the Montreal Diocesan
Theological College that I should criticize Arch-
deacon Farrar's interpretation of the texts quoted
in the Excursus to his book entitled " Eternal
Hope." I pray that it may be instrumental in
counteracting, in some measure, the evil effects
of that misleading book, and in establishing,
strengthening and settling those who read it, in
the conviction, that he who believeth not " shall
not see life ; but the wrath of Grod abideth on
, him." r - y -■_ ■ ^ ---. , \-, ;.",;:

Montreal, Feb. 27, 1884. . »

■■' ■4.,

y"

-X

\

:H^'

E^EI^LTT

TO

ARCHDEACON FARRAR.

; G-ENTLEMEN, ^

In accordance with your request, I
proceed to state my views on the subject of
Eternal Punishment. "

You must bear with me, however, if I detain
you beyond the time of an ordinary lecture in
the consideration of this question. This is a
subject of more than ordinary importance ; and
more than ordinary care and time are required
to expose the fallacies by which anti-orthodox
views are invariably supported. Some may,
indeed, question its importance, but with me
there is no room for doubt on the subject ; for,
surely, it must be of the very highest moment,
in relation to practice, to know whether we

can remove, without injury to the building, the
foundation on which the superstructure rests. .
How then shall this question be determined ?
I propose — .

1. To point out what the Church of England
teaches on the subject.

2. To state the various opinions respecting it.

3. To explain the conditions of the problem.

4. To adduce evidence of the orthodox doc-
trine.

5. To reply to objections. • -^

6. To criticize Archdeacon Farrar's Excursus
on "Eternal Hope."

I. What does the Church of England teach?
Is there any ground for the statement that " by
no single formulary of the Church of England
is such a dogma required " ?

To which we reply, that, in the Athanasian
Creed, it is said of the person who does not
keep the Catholic faith whole and undefiled,
"without doubt he shall perish everlastingly,"
and, "they that have done evil shall go into
everlasting fire," — " which except a man believes
faithfully he cannot be saved."

In the Litany we are taught to pray, saying,
" from thy wrath and from everlasting damna-
tion good Lord deliver us."

In the Catechism we are taught to say " that
He will keep us from our ghostly enemy and
from everlasting death." ; ^'

In the Burial Service we are taught to pray,
saying, " deliver us not into the bitter pains of
eternal death." ,

• In the Commination Service we read of the
** dreadful judgment hanging over our heads,"
of the " sudden destruction " which we shall not
escape, of " burning the chaff with unquencha-
ble fire," of the time " when men shall call upon
the Lord and he shall not hear," " they shall seek
him early but shall not find him," of the " outer
darkness," and of the "extreme malediction
which shall light upon them that shall be set
on the left hand."

In the Ordering of Priests, allusion is made
to the " horrible punishment " which will ens: ^
on neglect of official duties.

Yet with this evidence before him, and with
the knowledge that every clergyman must sub-
scribe to the Prayer book before his ordination.
Archdeacon Farrar does not hesitate to say that
'* no formulary of the Church of England requires
it." '

True, it is no longer included among the more
formal articles of the Faith, but when the forty-
second article on this subject was omitted, the
words quoted above were deliberately retained.
Hence we argue that the formal statement of the
doctrine was regarded as needless, and the fact is,
its frequent and informal presentation in the
various offices "is a stronger proof that it is

8

required" than if it were presented in a more
formal manner. It is evidently taken for grant-
ed, and the reasonable presumption is, that every
one will receive it without question. '

It should be remembered also that it is em-
bodied everywhere in the Homilies, and as we
subscribe the Homilies when we subscribe the
Book of Common Prayer, it will be difficult to
understand how any one can honestly enter the
ministry of the Church of England, or remain in
it, who does not accept the doctrine in the plain
grammatical sense of the terms in which it is
expressed in the Liturgy. - ; -

II. I propose to define the opinions on the
subject.

One is TJniversalism which teaches that all
men and evil angels after enduring an indefinite
but temporary punishment shall eventually be
saved. /^

Another is " Alleviationism " which teaches
that the impenitent shall neither cease to be,
nor be saved, but shall become better in charac-
ter and consequently in condition. • .,

Another is that eternal, punishment means
merely separation from the eternal, without
involving any more positive penal infliction.
Another is " Conditional Immortality " which
teaches that Glod " only hath immortality," and
that man was created potentially, but not neces-
sarily, immortal. The devil, a manslayer from

the beginning, led man into sin for the express
purpose of destroying his immortality, and
this was actually effected by the fall; that
immortality is restored only on condition of
faith in Christ, and that all therefore who
have not this faith in Christ shall cease to
exist. ^ _

Another is Farrarism, or Eternal Hope, which
is so indefinite that it can only be regarded as
the belief of one who would like to be a Univer-
salist if he could. ' ^ -

Another, the Orthodox Doctrine which teaches
that the finally impenitent shall exist hereafter
in a state of greater or less misery, in proportion
to the evil deeds done in the body without Grod
and without hope and therefore for ever.

III. I proceed next to state the conditions of
the problem : —

1. We have to deal with a Sovereign Creator.
He doeth according to his will both in the
armies of Heaven and among the inhabitants of
the earth. None can question his right to dic-
tate the terms on which he shall confer the gift
of life, or grant its continuance for any specified
time. . ^ . \ ■

2. We have to deal with an immutable Grod.
"I am the Lord, I change not," are his own
sublime words. He may change his mode of
procedure in any given case, but in himself he
cannot change. Even in man a change of out-

10

ward action does not always argue a change
of purpose. In Grod it never does. Otherwise
he would not be God.

3. We have to deal with ^an immortal soul.
The soul does not need food as the body does to
repair the continued waste. Hence it is not likely
that it is subject to waste of any kind. The
soul is immaterial and indivisible, and therefore
^ it is probable that it is immortal. It partakes of
the divine nature, and therefore it is more than
probable that it is immortal ; and if we regard
the subject from an historical point of view, it
seems to have been almost universally admitted
in all ages.

Moreover, " if we grant that the soul can sur-
vive such a shock as its separation from the
body it seems irrational to entertain doubts as to
its subsequent continuance. The most skeptical
philosopher might exclaim : Only prove to me
that the soul continues after death and I will
make no difficulty in granting to you that it is
immortal. Prove to me that there is a future life
at all, and I will grant to you that it is eternal."

"The ' Critique of Practical Eeason' demon-
strates what Butler had only recommended as
consistent with our previous knowledge — or at
least not inconsistent with it — viz : that there
is a righteous God ; that he reveals himself in
conscience, and that the spirit to which he
reveals himself is immortal."

11

4. "We have to deal with an unchangeable
Law. It is of the nature of law to be unchange-
able. Moreover, this law is a transcript of the
Divine nature. Any law fou ided on temporary-
relations may be abrogated when it ha3 se:ved
its purpose; but law founded on the eternal
necessities of the divine nature must be as;
etefnal and unchangeable as <xod himself.

5. We have to deal with man in his covenant
relationship to the law. Man was placed at his
creation under the first covenant of works,
G-en. ii. 16, 1*7, in relation to which another
covenant is spoken of, viz : the new covenant,
Heb. xii. 24. The first covenant was made with
Adam, in a federal capacity, as the representative
of our race, who, on this account, is called the
" First Adam." I Cor. xv. 45. He entered into it
willingly, and with a full sense of the righteous-
ness of the arrangement. This appears as well
from the title, covenant, which implies an agree-
ment between the parties, as also from the two-
fold consideration that we cannot think of Adam
while perfect as objecting to the will of his
Maker, and that after his fall he made no reflec-
tion on the injustice of the arrangement. In the
person of Adam each one of us broke this original
covenant, and became liable in cons^ quence to
all the penalties which were visited on him,
viz., alienation from Grod — depravation of nature
— forfeiture of the Spirit — and all else that is

12 ^

involved in the comprehensive sentence, "Thou
shalt surely die." The demonstrative evidence
of this is the universality of death in its physi-
cal aspect. " In Adam all die." I Cor. xv. 22 ;
yea, even those "who have not sinned after
the similitude of Adam's transgression." Rom.
V. 14. The death of infants is inexplicable on
any other supposition. The first covenant there-
fore is still in force in reference to all, -8j^ it is
written, " Tliis do and thou shalt live^ Luke x. 28.

By its terms the rewards of eternal life and
happiness are still conditioned upon the presen-
tation of unblemished obedience to all the
precepts of the divine law. And in case of dis-
obedience, not only is the same demand for
unblemished obedience continued, but in addi-
tion, the threatened penalty (Gren. iii. 17, 19,) is
incurred and must be endured, until the required
condition l)e fulfilled, ^. e., so far as man himself
is concerned, for ever. For, as before transgres-
sion, the continuance of life depended on the
continuance of perfect obedience ; so after trans-
gression the restoration of life depends upon the
same, together with the endurance of a satisfac-
tory death.

6. We have to deal with a class who are
devoid of merit. Merit is the technical term for
perfect unbroken obedience ; and where merit is
wanting two things are needful in order to make
full amendment for it ; first, death by the shed-

13

ding of blood, to take away the guilt of disobe-
dience ; and second, the performL.nce of the
obedien^^e as originally required. The removal of
the guilt would not be sufficient to atone for the
sin. The supply of actual obedience in place of
demerit is, if possible, even more necessary, before
the demands of the law can be satisfied. For,
let a given right line represent the obedience

thus , a sin may be represented by a break

in the line, thus ; But is it not evi-
dent, that in order to mend the break it is not
enough simply to suffer for the act of breaking ?
The line itself must be made perfect, otherwise
the task is not complete. But in the case of
those who have broken the line of obedience
once, it is impossible to do this. They cannot
retrace the past and present a perfect obedience
for an imperfect ; consequently, their condemna-
tion must last as long as this inability lasts —
and is not that forever ? Can sinners ever hope
to overcome an obstacle like this ? If so, I know
not how it can be done. A failure to observe this
is one main cause of the prevalent indisposition
to receive the orthodox doctrine. In fact, the
non-recognition of man's legal relations in his
natural state, as set forth in the epistle to the
Eomans, is the root of much of the religious error
of the present day.

t. "We have to deal with those who are de-
rpived of the Spirit. This is involved in the

, 'T'

14

representation given in Scripture of our natural
fitate, that we are "dead." For as death physical
means the separation of the soul from the body,
so spiritual death means the separation of the
soul from Grod. We are not by nature intellec-
tually or morally dead, but we are by nature
jspirituajly dead. As born into the world we
have no spiritual faculty, and are therefore
unable to discern the things of the Spirit (I Cor.
ii. 14,) any more than one can see who is born
without the faculty needful for that purpose.
This separation of the soul from G-od took place
when Adam sinned, and in fulfilment of the
judicial sentence : " Thou shalt surely die." In
other words, the Spirit was judicially with-
drawn, as the penal consequence of Adam's sin,
and we are inheritors of his inability in this
respect. : ■ /

8. "We have to deal with a helpless race. (1)
Naturally helpless, on account of the withdrawal
of the Spirit, involving as a necessary conse-
quence spiritual death, and (2.) For the same
reason eternally helpless ; (unless, indeed, the
Holy Spirit can be restored,) for, not only has the
spirit been withdrawn, but we are unable to
retrace our steps and substitute merit for demerit
— obedience for sin. _^-

9. We have to deal with a Spirit who cannot
operate except in conjunction with the Saviour.
One person of the sacred Trinity cannot act inde-

16

pendently of the other two. The grieved Spirit
cannot return unless the terms of the original
covenant are fulfilled. Consequently the work
of the spirit is inseparably connected with the
work of Christ. If ever, therefore, the mediatorial
work of the Saviour shall cease, the work of
the Spirit also must cease, and man must be left
in his natural helplessness to fulfil the terms of
the covenant in his own strength.

10. "We enjoy the presence of the Spirit now for
a time, because Christ has fulfilled the covenant
for us, and we are therefore undergoing now for
a time a second probation. The first was passed
representatively in Adam. The second is passed
personally during our present life time. Tested
at first to see whether he would fall, man is now
tested a second time, to ascertain whether he will
rise again and re-occupy the position which in
Adam he lost. Being involved in eternal con-
demnation by the fault of another, he has now
the opportunity of being " drawn out," but if he
refuses the intervention of that Providence which
would make him an adopted son andjheir of the
kingdom, he has nothing to look for but a cer-
tain fiery indignation which shall devour the
adversaries.

11. There is, however, a limit to the mediatorial
reign of Christ, and therefore a limit to the gra-
gious operations of the Divine Spirit. On this
point the Old Testament Scriptures have given

,k

16

many indirect intimations^ and the New many
clear and infallible proofs. The wise man said
"He that being often reproved hardeneth his
heart shall suddenly be destroyed, and that with-
out remedy. Prov. xxix, 1. It is written: "Then
shall they call upon me, but I will not answer ;
they shall seek me early, but they shall not find
me." And we are all familiar with the words :
" The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and
we are not saved." ,

More clearly still, in the New Testament
we read of the dresser of the vineyard using
these significant words : '" After that thou shalt
cut it down." We find the Lord Jesus described
4is the "last Adam," and the present dispensa-
tion spoken of an the "last time." — Nay more, to
remove all room for doubt, it is expressly stated,
2 Cor. XV. 24 : " Then cometh the end, when he
shall have delivered up the kingdom to the
Father, when he shall have put down all rule and
all authority and power "; and " There remain-
ethno more sacrifice for sin." The Spirit which
was purchased by the sacrifice of the Saviour
shall be finally withdrawn. The restraints now
imposed upon the propensities of the wicked
shall be entirely and forever taken away, and as
a natural consequence the last state of these men
shall be worse than the first. Unimpeded then
by any supernatural check they will decline from
one degree of moral turpitude to another, as

It

inevitably as a stone held for a time at the top
of en inclined plane, must roll downwards, when
that whicli held it is removed, and not cease till
it reaches the spot where, in accordance with the
unalterable laws of the universe, it must remain
until it shall either ascend of itself or be taken
up by sonie superior power. ,

Hence it follows that reconciliation with God
can only be effected while the reign of the
Saviour lasts. It will be too late to look for it
after the " door is shut." — ^Matt. xxv. 10. It can-
not take place after the Son shall have " delivered
uj) the kingdom." Nor after death and hell shall
be " cast into the lake of fire." » -

12. We have to deal with those who will be
continually sinning; Many seem to think that
when the Hubicon ol death is passed, the fountain
of sin will be dried up, and the punishment to
be endured will have reference only to the sins
of this life, but a little reflection will show how
erroneous this opinion is : "A corrupt tree can-
not bring forth good fruit," and though it be
true that for the demerit of evil deeds committed
here — nay more, of a single evil deed, an eternity
of punishment is no more than the due reward
according to the terms of the covenant. Yet it
is no less true, that the punishment to be awarded
hereafter is not to be regarded as referring exclu-
sively to the sins committed here. It refers
eqtkally to sins committed in that future state.

18

Each successive sin has its own weight of penalty-
attached, and it needs no great ability to under-
stand that endless sin demands an endless
punishment. ^. ^ •

13. Another element should not be forgotten —
Will the lost even desire to be reconciled
unto God ? How could they when they
entertain an undying hatred to God and every-
thing good ? Not only will they not wish
for such an inestimable blessing, but they will
probably wish that they may not be reconciled.
They may undoubtedly seek relief, for they will -
be "tormented in this flame," but they will
not seek it in the company of the holy, just and
good. They may wish to have the " tongue
cooled," but not that they may chant the praises
of the Lord. Their only desire will be that they
may be permitted to return to the earth from
whence they came. If the permission were
granted it is presumed that they would remain
unchanged and pursue again the indulgence of
those sins which brought them to the place of
torment, and separated between themselves and
their God.

14. It is scarcely needful to add that there will
be only the two states after the judgment. There
is no intermediate condition between that of
those who endure the wrath to come, and that of
those who enter into the joy of the Lord. Then
as now, if the word of God be true, whosoever

. «•".

19

shall not be with Christ shall be against him,
and it will need then more than the power of
divine Omnipotence to change the enmity of the
hard and stony heart into the friendship and love
of one that is filled with the influences of the
Spirit of God. ' ; - r

Such are the conditions of the problem before
us, and when we review them, we conclude that
if the Grod of the universe be unchangeable ; if
his covenant of works be still in force ; if the
mediatorial reign of Christ be limited in dura-
tion, and the work of the Spirit inseparably
connected with it ; if man be left to himself to
satisfy the demands of the violated law and to
stand perfect and complete before a holy God —
it cannot be done. It is impossible for a man to
renew his life from the beginning and fill up
the deficiencies of the past, and present a right-
eousness which will stand the searching scrutiny
of him " who keepeth mercy for thousands " but
will by no means "clear the guilty."

IV. I proceed now to the proofs of the orthodox
doctrine from Reason and Scripture :

In the first place then, Reason suggests that
the same causes which operate to make the
punishment of sin inevitable here, may operate
in the same way throughout Eternity. Unless
there be some positive reason for anticipating of
a change in the laws which regulate human
action, the presumption unquestionably is that

'..■■■. ■v--i =.»:.,

20

in respect of sin, all things will continue as
they have done since the day in which Adam
by transgression fell. Some think that a change
will be introduced in the way of annihil-
ation, and that after a temporary punishment all
sinners shall cease to exist. But the moral diffi-
culties of the temporary punishment of the
wicked hereafter are much greater than those
connected with their eternal punishment. *' It
would seem like vindictiveness if God were to
raise men from the dead in order that, having
tormented them for a number of years, he might
consign them to annihilation. If annihilation
be no part of G-od's scheme we can understand
that a soul, as long as it exists, must bear the lot
in which it has involved itself. But if it be G-od's
intention to annihilate any, pity would suggest
that he should do so without inflicting prelimin-
ary torment . . It is more difficult to imagine
purposes served by the temporary sufferings of
the wicked after this life than by their eternal
punishment. Sufferings not supposed to end in
reformation, must be inflicted for the benefit, not
of the offender himself, but of others. Now we
can understand that the perpetual exhibition in
the case of a few (as compared with the whole
universe) of the terrible consequences of sin
may be the means for maintaining in the many
a wholesome horror of sin. It may be questioned
whether any transient exercise of judgment

21

would suffice to produce an impression certain
to endure throughout eternity. But if tempor-
rary punishments will suffice, we can form no
conjecture as to the length of time necessary
for their continuance. No one can assert that
he has ascertained that this life is too short
for the display of Grod's hatred of sin, or that
he can discern a necesssity for prolonging the
misery which vice entails in this life for a fur-
ther period, which, however long, will still be
but a moment in comparison of eternity."

In short, then, the supposition of temporary
sufferings of the wicked to be succeeded by their
annihilation, appears to be quite destitute of evi-
dence, while it does not remove a single difficulty
which attends the doctrine of eternal punish-
ment." This was observed long since by Cicero,
who " casts great ridicule on this hypothesis as
entertained by certain stoic philosophers. He
urges that they grant all that is difficult, and
raise doubts where there seems no room for
doubt." Tusc. Quest. I. 32.

We see therefore no prospect of change in the
future ; on the contrary, there seems to be abun-
dant evidence to show that the same causes not
only may, but must operate throughout the
countless ages of eternity.

1. The necessities of the divine nature demand
it. G-od's infinite truth demands it. " Hath he
said, and shall he not do it? Hath he spoken,
and shall he not bring it to pass ?"

~ - . _ 22

His iufinite holiness demands it. To pardon
sin without sufficient satisfaction would be to
encourage sin. It would be to offer a premium
upon its commission, and this is scarcely possible
for him who is "of purer eyes than to behold
iniquity," and " chargeth even his angels with
folly."

His infinite justice also demands it. The
stream of punishment must flow as long as
flows the stream of sin ; continued punishment
is but the requitalof desert to those who con-
tinue in sin. The reward of demerit is as much
required in the case of the sinner as the reward
of merit in the case of the righteous. Justice
demands that the punishment in the one case
shall be as lasting as the rewards in the other,
and if that be as long as . their unrighteousness
lasts, it is more than probable that it will be
for ever.

There is no reason to suppose that they will ever
become better, but on the contrary, worse. Carry-
ing with them the characters moulded by their
conduct in this life, they will move on in the
same direction in which they have been walking
here, and will become so fixed in their habits
that it will be impossible to change them. This
would be the natural result, even if they were
in the company of the holy and the good ; but if
not, how can we expect them to improve. Is it
at all probable that moral progress can be made

in company with the devil and his angels, where
there is no counteracting influence for good , no
example to follow, no voice to warn, no power
to act ?

2. The terms of the covenant demand it. In
order to see this clearly, it is needful to remem-
ber what has been said about the demerit and
the guilt of sin. It is the demerit of sin and not
its guilt which causes the eternity of future
punishment. While, therefore, the demerit of sin
remains, the punishment cannot but remain also.
But the demerit must remain forever where once
it exists — for man can neither blot out the past
nor fill up his demerits in the future. He can-
not mend the breach in the line of his past dis-
obedience and come to the Lord, and say : My
obedience is perfect — as thoroughly so as if I had
never sinned. Till this is done the case is hope-
less. The broken covenant will call for its ful-
filment ; and it is evident from the nature of the
case that it must call in vain.

3. The interests of Grod's moral government
demand it. The law which is " holy, just and
good," must be maintained. To relax it would
be to render the divine government unworthy of
respect throughout the moral universe. It would
be to offer the gift of life on lower terms than it
was offered originally to Adam in his state of
innocence, or to angels and archangels before
him. It would be to manifest a culpable weak-

24

ness such as we attribute only to fallible man,
and to declare that the endurance of a partial
penalty will suffice, not only to free from condem-
nation, but also to entitle to the reward of right-
eousness.

4. The free agency of man demands it. It is
well worthy of consideration whether the Uni-
versalist theory is not inconsistent with the truth
of the free ag'ency of man. " Is it not a condition
of the very idea of probation that some will
stand, others fall ; and does not the logical con-
clusion from the theory go to prove the denial
of free will ? Is it really compatible with the
true idea of free will that all should eventually
choose aright ?"

5. The mission of the Saviour demands it. If
sinners be restored at all hereafter, it must be
apart from the work of Christ and the interven-
tion of his Spirit, as already proved. But if so,
the mission of the Saviour, with all its wondrous
antecedents and accompaniments, was really
needless for purposes of salvation. It was noth-
ing more than a mere sensational exhibition of
extraordinary moral virtue. The miraculous
mcarnation of the Son of Man, his deep humila-
tion and unparalleled sufferings are thus re-
duced to the level of a mere theatrical display,
with a view to produce a moral effect ; or, at best,
to give men a helping hand towards the attain-
ment of everlasting salvation ; a help which

. ■, . V

25

might have been dispensed with, if this theory
be true, and which was wholly unnecessary in
any absolute sense, if it so be that we can be
saved by temporary punishment, or any other
name under heaven but that of Jesus only.

In short, the Universalist theory seems to be
a total abnegation of the G-ospel. It is certainly so
with regard to the finally impenitent. Previous
to Revelation it would be more difficult to under-
stand how sin could be forgiven than how it
could b^ eternally punished. But by E^velation
the mystery of forgiveness is explained, while
the certainty of eternal punishment is confirmed-
Since, therefore. Revelation gives no hope (as we
shall presently see) of future restoration to the
lost, it seems impossible for those who accept
not the oficr of forgiveness now, to escape the
due, and therefore the eternal, reward of their
deeds.- ■■■"'"^ " "■'■ ■' " ■ ■'"•"' ^^^'^■^■■■•

6. On the supposition that Christ had not
come, man must have perished everlastingly^
Much more will he be punished " with ever-
lasting destruction from the presence of the
Lord, and from the glory of his power," if he
either neglects or rejects th^^. great salvation
provided for him. Sin in the light of the cross
becomes exceeding sinful. It enhances un-
utterably the guilt of the unbeliever. It leaves
him equally without excuse and without
redemption.

1

26

7. But we go further and say, that universal
restoration is impossible even if the Spirit of G-od
could intervene, apart from the Saviour's satisfac-
tion for sin ; and simply because, as already
proved, personal satisfaction in the future can
never satisfy for personal sin in the past. Even
therefore on the supposition that the impenitent
could become thoroughly sanctified in body, soul
and spirit, apart from Christ, this would not
suffice to fulfil the terms of the covenant. It
would not avail to supply the perfect righteous-
ness. It would not be enough in a court of
justice to reverse the sentence of death. ; ;

8. And for the same reason we say that restora-
tion is impossible, even if it could be proved that
punish ^nent is purgative. It is not merely the
cleansing of the sufferer from the guilt and pol-
lution of sin, that is required. The perfection of
obedience from the beginning must be secured. .
The terms of the covenant as regards the precepts
of the lav7 must be kept inviolate. But we deny
that punishment is purgative in relation to the
impenitent, whatever it may be with reference to
others ; as chastisement, it may be, but not as
punishment; and, you are aware that chastise-
ment relates only to the good.

9. It is a strong confirmation of this truth that
it is so closely in accordance with the analogy of
nature. There is a point in the affairs of the
men of this world, up to which they may retrieve

27

their fortunes, but beyond that point it is im-
possible. • ■ V -

We conclude, therefore, from the foregoing
considerations that the present life is " the "
season favorable to salvation, and the analogy of
nature teaches us that seasons neglected can
never be recalled.

But what saith the Scripture. Before we
examine it, let me say that there are certain rules
to be observed in its interpretation which can-
not be overlooked. Of these two only need be
mentioned here.

1. We must interpret it so as to make it con-
sistent with itaelf, e. g., the meaning of the word
" reconciliation " must be limited, as God himself
has limited it. If he says that reconcialiation can
only be effec^ ^d in one way, viz., through Christ ;
who are we that we should presume to say it may
take place in some other way, viz., apart from
Christ?

2. We must interpret it from the position of
its own writers and audiences.

We come then to the consideration of Scrip-
tural testimony. It may be subdivided- into the
following parts :

1. The testimony of the Old Testament.
.' 2. The testimony of Christ. .

3. The testimony of the Apostles.
. 4. Indirect testimonies.

We find the first testimony in Gren. ii. Vj,

* . i

/■

28

where it is written : "In the day that thou eat-
est thereof thou shalt surely die." This means
more than physical death, for though Adam died
he continued to live. It embraces a two-fold
death, " dying, thou shalt die." It supports the
view that the state of future retribution is the
continuation and development of the present. It
intimates that the ultimate death to which refer-
ence is here enigmatically made, will be unlim-
ited in its duration. This is indicated negatively
by the absence of all limit in the verse before us,
and there is room for the belief that our first
parents thoroughly understood the matter in this
sense. If this be true, Adam sinned in full
view of the nature of the predicted consequences
and so the very first man (as might naturally
have been supposed) had clear and sufficient
information given him respecting a doctrine, of
which some do not scruple to say that there is
no trace of it whatever in the Old Testament
Scriptures. " ' ■

The next testimony is found in G-en. iii. 15,
where it is written " Thou (the serpent) shalt
bruise his heel." Here it is clearly revealed that
though the promised Seed should bruise the ser-
pent's head, yet the serpent should bruise his
heel, in other words, should succeed in inflicting
a permanent injury upon that body of which
the promised Seed was the Head. I say perma-
nent, because, confessedly, the bruising of the

', ♦

29

Head is permanent, and the bruising in the one
clause of the sentence must be equally perma-
nent with that in the other. If so, we find in
these words, a clear prediction of the future and
permanent sufferings of a portion of that body
of which the Saviour was the appointed repre-
sentative. They declare on the very first page
of human history, the perfect compatibility of
such suffering with the reality of the Saviour's
supremacy, and the truth of his conquest over
all his enemies. --►

Some indeed say that if any be lost, it
will in so far be an evidence that Satan
has triumphed over Christ — as if the captives
behind the conqueror, in his triumphal entry to
the city, were not rather an additional evidence ■

^C ' of his triumph than an evidence against it.

^ ;■ They say — his purpose of salvation towards them

/ : is frustrated — yes, if that purpose was that all

; should be saved without exception, but the very

• opposite seems to be the case. He has said

, plainly of some "They shall not see life." He

said with a significant emphasis " I say unto

you that many shall seek to enter in and shall

not be able" (Luke xiii. 24), and it is written

(Luke xix. 27) : " But those mine enemies which

would not that I should reign over them bring

!; hither and slay before me."

We come next to the types and shadows of

^ the Mosaic economy and we err greatly, - we

imagine thatthere are no instructive intimations

30

there. We find e. g*, that there were some sins,
viz., presumptive sins, which were incapable
of expiation, and this is the germ of the truth
that there are some sins which shall not be
forgiven, either in this world, or in that which
is to come. -

If we pass on to the Psalms and Proverbs we
find such passages as these " I shall be innocent
from the great transgression." (Psl. xix. 13.)
" Salvation is far from the wicked." (Psl. cxix.
155.) " The wicked is driven away in his wicked-
ness, but the righteous hath hope in his death."
(Prov. xiv, 32.)

The prophets also speak the same language.
Isaiah says (xxxiii. 12) : " The people shall be
as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up, shall
they be burned in the fire." — Who among us
shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who
among us shall dwell with'everlasting burnings?
He says again in a passage which Archdeacon
Farrar evidently does not like, and which is as
evidently referred to by our Saviour in the New
Testament. " They shall go forth and look upon
the carcases of the men that have transgressed
against thee : for their worm shall not die,
neither shall their fire be quenched and they
shall be an abhorring to all flesh." (Is. Ixvi. 24.)
See also Dan. xii. 2. " Many of them that sleep
in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life and some to shame and ever-
lasting contempt."

31

These are strong testimonies. They speak of
death and exclusion from the presence of the
Lord. To an unsophisticated mind they convey
the idea of eternal duration. But this is ques-
tioned, and we reply that all the remaining scrip-
tural representations confirm this view. *

Take for example the representations of the Ixyrd
Jesus Christ himself He did not speak as a Uni-
versalist when he was here upon earth. His
countrymen, with the exception of the Sadducees
believed in the doctrine of eternal punishment.
But on no occasion did he correct them for
erroneous views on this subject. I am aware
that Archdeacon Farrar has questioned the
truth of the statement, that the Jews believed in
eternal punishment, but there is full and decisive
evidence on this point. The Chaldee paraphrast
interprets it to mean "the Gehenna of eternal
fire." Lightfoot, vol. xi., p. 107.

Josephus gives the doctrines of both the Es-
senes and the Pharisees : — "The Essenes like
th^ G-reeks allot to bad men a dark and tempes-
tuous den, full of never ceasing punishments (timo-
rion adialeipton). De Bello, Judacio ii., 8,

The Essenes say that bad men are restrained
by the fear of suffering immortal punishment
(athanaton timorian) De B., J., 11, 8.

The Pharisees hold " that souls are incorrupt-
ible, (apthartous) but that the souls of good men
are only moved into other bodies, whereas the

ijr

82

souls of bad men are subject to eternal punish-
ment (timoria aidio) De B. J., 11, 8.

Again Aut. xviii., 1 — 3. That there is in hu-
man souls an immortal force, that to some there
is assigned "eternal imprisonment (eirgmon
aidion. —

Also in his so-called book " De Machaboeis "
it is written " The judgment shall assign thee
to an eternal fire (aionio puri) and to torments
which shall not leave thee for all eternity (eis
holon ton aiona), and in his discourse concern-
ing Hades he says " allotting to the lovers of
wicked works eternal punishment. To these
belong the unquenchable fire, and that without
end, and a certain fiery worm, never dying, and
not destroying the body." *

The book of Judith also gives evidence of the
early Jewish opinions on the subject, xvi. 17,
"The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on
them in the day of judgment, and they shall
feel them and weep forever." The question is thus
placed beyond dispute, and we learn from these
quotations the sense in which our Lord's words
are to be understood where he says " Some shall
enter into life everlasting and others shall go
away into everlasting punishment." >i

Consider also how frequently and emphati-
cally he expressed himself on the subject.
He said to Nicodemus that he must " be born
Again or that he could not enter the kingdom."

88

He declared that "they (meaning that they only)
that hear shall live " ; that some " shall come
forth to the resurrection of damnation " ; that
there is both "a broad and narrow way," and that
" few there be that find it " ; that there are some
who " have never forgiveness "and some who
shall be " denied before the angels of 6-od "; that
there is one who " shall destroy both body and
soul in hell " and some who shall " lose their own
soul " ; that there are some " who shall die in
their sins " and some who " shall be thrust down
into hell " ; that there are some who shall be
commanded to " depart from him" and some who
shall be " miserably destroyed." He said on one
occasion " How can ye escape the damnation of
hell ? " on another " If a man abide not in me
he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and
men gather them and cast them into the fire
and they are burned." — No man ever yet saw a
withered branch restored, much less a withered
branch after it was burned. — He said of Judas
that he was the " son of perdition " and that he
was " lost." He said moreover to the eleven on
the summit ot Olivet, ere he ascended to the
Father, that it was of the very essence of the
Grospel which he commissioned them to preach
to teach this doctrine " Gro ye into all the world
and preach the G-ospel to every creature, he that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he
that believeth not shall be damned."

34

Now, when we think on these things and re-
flect that they were spoken to a people who be-
lieved in the immortality of the soul, and in the
eternity of penal sufferings beyond the grave,we
cannot but acknowledge the force of such testi-
mony on the orthodox side. We ought to con-
fess that they were calculated to confirm the
Jews in the popular belief that there was no
escape from the final condemnation of the pit.

The teaching of the apostles fully agrees with
that of their Divine Master; The great burden
of it everywhere is salvation for the lost. It
matters not to what Epistle we turn we find its
author speaking as if the orthodox doctrine were
true. St. Paul says solemnly to the Gralatians,
"I tell you that they which do such things
shall not inherit the Kingdom of Grod."
" Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also
roap, he that soweth to the flesh shall of the
flesh reap corruption, but he that soweth to the
spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting."
Is it possible that a stronger illustration could
have been used ? Is it in the nature of corrup-
tion to purge and improve that which is the
sucject of its power ? Or did any one ever see
corruption restored ? •

We read also of those " who shall be punished
with everlasting destruction from the preseJnce
of the Lord and from the glory of his power,",
and as if the apostle anticipated the objection

85

which so many urge at the present day he puts
this pertinent enquiry, " Is God unrighteous
who taketh vengeance ? " and says, " G-od forbid,
for then how shall God judge the world ? " To
which we may add the testimony of the loving
John who says that the " Smoke of their tor-
ment ascendeth up forever and ever." (Eev. xiv.
11.) Thus the apostolic testimony also endorses
the popular belief. Couple it then with that of
the Saviour's and with the argument derived
. >from the legal and covenant necessities of the
case, and the conclusion seems to be irresistible
that the Scriptures affirm the orthodox doctrine
with a frequency and a power which cannot
consist with restoration principles and is abso-
lutely inexplicable, taken as a whole, except
upon the basis of its absolute truth.

This will appear still more strongly if you
turn to a passage in the epistle of the Hebrews
vi. 4, where the apostle says " It is impossible

. . .to renew them again to repentance."
The force of these words cannot be evaded by
any of the ordinary methods. They cannot be
explained away in a figurative sense. It is
stated plainly that in the case of some, recovery
is impossible, observe, impossible here^ where the
Spirit is confessedly available, much more im-
possible there, where His gracious influences are
withdrawn. . *

Now, could there be stronger language than

/'

36

this? Surely we have iu this passage what
Archdeacon Farrar says he has been searching
in vain for, viz. : "an indisputable voice of
Revelation to guide us." If this be not one,
what more indisputable could be desired. This
is the case of persons upon whom every divine
influence has been exercised, and without effect.
Can any other influence be exerted which is
likely to prove more effectual ? If the Almighty
himself is unable to persuade men to repent-
ance, who, or what, can hope to be more
successful ? The very idea of such a possibility
is subversive of the first principles of morality
and religion. It is blasphemous in the extreme.
The thing as Grod the Holy G-host declares it to
be — is impossible.

There are besides many indirect testimonies
which strongly corroborate the ortliodox view,
such as, that some are " without Grod " in the
world, and " without hope " (a flat contradiction
to Eternal Hope) ; that there are some for who;raL
the atonement will not avail, and some for
whom neither prayers nor entreaties will be of
any use — that both Grod and the righteous
approve of this retributive treatment, and that
the incorrigibly wicked continue to grow worse
and worse, together with many others of a similar
import, and when we take these in conjunction
with those which have gone before, and consider
their cumulative force, they constitute an argu-

//

ment which cannot easily be broken. They are
just the kind of allusion which we might expect
to meet with, if the orthodox doctrine be true.
They are quite inexplicable if it be not true, and
coming as they do from so many portions of
Grod's Word, and uncontradicted as they are by
others of an opposite character, they seem per-
fectly incompatible w^it]^ any other theory than
that the doctrine is true.

Y. I propose now to reply to some popular
objections proceeding from the Univeralists on
the one hand, and Annihilationists on the other.
It is objected that the passages quoted do not
teach the doctrine in question. The terms in the
original, it is said, are capable of a different
interpretation. The G-reek word " Aionios "
does not always mean unending, " Krisis '^ does
not always mean " eternal" judgment. " Kolasis"
means positively corrective punishment.

To which we reply — It is true that " Aionios "
is used sometimes of limited duration, but it is
no less true that it is also used in such a way as
to preclude this idea. It is used of the duration
of Grod the Father, Eom. xvi. 26. It is used of
the glory of God the Father, 1 Peter v. 10. It
is used of the life that is in the Son, Eom. vi.
23 (see the G-reek) ; 1 John v. 11. It is used of
the glory that accompanies the salvation that is
in Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. iv. It. It is used of the
duration of the Eternal Spirit, Heb. ix. 14. It is

38-

used also of the life of the Blessed, John x. 28 ;
Heb. V. 9. The question, therefore, as to whether
it signifies a limited or an unlimited duration
when it is applied to future punishment, must
be determined by the general considerations
already adduced, as well as by those which are
yet follow, and to my mind there are two whose
force cannot be evaded, and which, therefore,
settle the question beyond all controversy. The
first is, that the terms of the original covenant
of works require it — without perfect obedience
the sinner cannot be released. The second, that
the Jews must have so understood the words of
the Lord and His apostles ; and therefore our
Lord and His apostles must have intended them
to be so understood.

The same observations apply to all the terms
used by our Blessed Lord and His apostles with
reference to this subject. " Krisis " in like
manner is used sometimes to mean a lesser
judgment, but it does not follow that it is, there-
fore, always so used — e.g., in Matt, xxiii. 33 or
Mark iii. 29. With as much reason it might be
said that the word " sentence " used most
frequently in English to signify words arranged
in a certain order, without any reference what-
ever to loss of life, can never mean a judicial
sentence involving loss of physical life ; or,
that because the English word " hang " in nine
hundred and ninety-nine cases, perhaps, out of

every thousand of its tiso, implies the mere
harmless suspension of a coat or some such
thing, it can therefore never mean to hang in a
punitive sense — to kill by suffocation — yet Arch-
deacon Farrar says that because there are only
fifteen places out of more than a hundred in
which our translation has deviated from the
proper renderings of "judge " and " condemn"
into " damn " and its cognates, this single fact
ought to be decisive to every candid mind.
Indeed! The mind unquestionably may be
candid, but it would be far from logical. It is
Scarcely logical to say that because a word is
used in one hundred and eighty-five cases in
a certain sense, it must, therefore, be so used
in every case.

"We now come to the word " Kolasis " (Matt.
XXV. 46) of which it is said that it means correc-
tive punishment — chastisement with a view to
improvement. Suppose it to be so, for the sake
of argument. It has been already shown that
even if men could be sanctified by means of
punishment, it would not avail (in consequence
of past imperfect obedience) to deliver them
from condemnation — it would not entitle them
on the terms of the covenant, to the reward of
eternal life.

But is it true to say that punishment is in its
nature corrective ? The answer is, yes, but not
in the sense intended by the Universalist.

' 40

*' Kolasis " in its original signification refers to
the pruning of a tree ({castigatio quce luxuriantihus
arboribus adhibetur, et qua velut supplicio eoercerentwr,
et reprimuntur), and the question arises here
whether the corrective idea expressed by the
word applies to the tree which is pruned, or to
the branch which is cut off? We say it applies
to the tree which is thereby benefited. Univer-
salists say it applies to the branch which is
cut off.

It is objected that " even if the Bible does
teach the doctrine, we cannot believe it. Such
teaching is overruled by other considerations.'*
But we are dealing with those who regard the
authority of the Bible as supreme. There can-
not, therefore, be any overruling considerations.
It is objected — e.g., that eternal punishment
would be unjust — o finite sin cannot merit an
eternal punishment. This objection is founded
on the erroneous suppositions, first, that future
punisnment relates only to the guilt of sin,
omitting all considering of its demerit ; and,
secondly, that it relates only to the sins of this
life. As regards the first point it is needless to
repeat that this would be to grant the gift of
life to sinners on lower terms, denied to others.
In other words, it would be unjust not to con-
tinue the punishment as long as the terms of the
covenant respecting obedience are unfulfilled ;
and as regards the second, we reply in the

'i^v

41

words of Leibnitz : " No single sin is in-
finite, but if the sinner in another state
continues to sin as long as he exists this will
give to his sins the character of infinity." Let
no one imagine that sin is limited to this side
of the grave. It is written " He that is unjust
let him be unjust still ; and he which is filthy,
let him be filthy still (Eev. xxii. 11). Our Blessed
Lord said (John viii. 24) " Ye shall die in your
sins," and if the reading of Mark iii. 29, now gene"
rally received, be adopted. He said also " He that
blasphemeth against the Holy Grhost hath never
forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal sin."

It is objected further — there will be another
probation. We answer there is no evidence of
any, and no reason for it ; if there ought to be
another, then there ought to be another still,
and so on ad inflnitum. This theory seems to
ignore the fact that there are some who are
incorrigibly wicked, and to suppose that Grod
would consign them to " the place of torment "
before they became incorrigible, which is
certainly putting dishonour upon God. But the
Scriptures expressly declare there shall be none.
It says that " now " is the day of salvation. It
assumes that our present probation is adequate,
and shall be final. Its solemn warnings and its
tender entreaties hinge upon the thought that
all hope of mercy for the sinner dies with his
physical death.

42 .' '

But it is objected agaiu — the law will be
relaxed. We answer it is fai from probable, in
the light of the life and death of Christ ; rather
than that it should be relaxed in the least degree,
the Father sent the Son to fulfil its utmost
requirements. Has He then another Son to send?
or will the Son of Man consent to die again for
the ungodly ? Not so long as the words remain
that " death hath no more dominion over him."

This answer might suffice, but when it is said
He relaxed it once by the very admission of the
Saviour as our substitute, why then can he
not do so again ? It becomes needful to furnish
a more detailed reply. The objection betrays an
ignorance on the subject and a confusion of
thought which it may be feared is widely
prevalent.

Our business then will be to show that the
admission of a substitute was not a relaxation
of the demands of the law, but on the contrary,
a means of upholding its demands to the letter,
and making it honourable.

The objection proceeds on the supposition
that the demands of justice for penal satisfaction
are essentially personal and that, therefore, a
substitute cannot be admitted. But it is said,
if Grod is able to substitute one person for
another, why can he not dispense with punish-
ment altogether ?

The answer is, — The law is not relaxed in

-" '■ ' " " '■' 4S ■ ' ■ ' '^ ^^,

such a case. Its righteous demands remain the
same whether they are made upon the sinner in
person or upon his accepted substitute. There
is no abatement whatever in respect of either
the precept or the penalty, consequently, in no
sense can the admission of a substitute be con-
strued into a relaxation of the law. This is
evident if it be admitted, that a legal one-
ness is all that is required to satisfy the
claims of law. The substitute is in all respects
legally one with the person in whose place he
stands, and a satisfaction made by him secures
the legal ends in view as fully as if it were
made by the sinner in person.

How can this be it is urged ? the sufferings
of the Saviour were not equivalent in duration.
The penalty inflicted on the sinner is eternal.
That incurred by the Saviour was only tem-
porary. Notwithstanding the satisfaction made
• by the sinner was equivalent.

To prove this it will be needful to revert
to fundamental principles, and call attention
once more to the demands of the covenant under
which the Saviour acted. In the case of the
sinner it demanded merit for demerit and death
for guilt. Merit alone would not suffice to
satisfy without death, nor would death and the
removal of guilt by death be sufficient without
merit, but both combined constitute all that
can be required either of the sinner in person

44

or an accepted substitute. If, therefore, it were
possible in the case of the sinner that merit
should be presented, it would only remain to
take away the guilt by the act of death, and
the sinner would be immediaiely released. On
the other hand, if the sinner presented the
death and thus took away the guilt, it would
still remain that he should present the merit,
and it would follow that he should remain
under death till that condition should be fulfilled.
Now the Saviour did present the merit — a per-
fect unbroken obedience — consequently, it only
remained for him to take away the guilt by
death, He, therefore, did not become subject to
the eternal element at all. He left no duty
unfulfilled. But the sinner did not present the
merit. He therefore suffered the death, and he
must continue *to do so until the merit be
produced.

Hence it appears that the difference in the
duration between the suffering of the Saviour
and the sinner was owing to the difference
between a sinless person and a sinner. It arose
from the counterbalancing difference in the
degree of merit. The sinner being unable to
show merit remained subject to the curse and
will remain so as long as his inability to produce
it lasts. The Saviour on the other hand possess-
ing the merit, was under obligation to do no
more than remove the guilt, which in his case,

45

by reason of his perfect obedience, was the full
penalty required.

There is therefore no ground for the asser-
tion that the law was relaxed in the Saviour's
case. So far from this being the case, the
truth is, that the Saviour's intervention was the
method adopted by Grod to prevent the relaxation
of the law in effecting the restoration of the
sinner. Under these circumstances we hold
that there is not a vestige of hope as regards any
future relaxation. If Grod relaxed not the law
for His Son neither will He do it for us. If He
spared not His own Son, neither will He spare us.

Notwithstanding, many cling to the idea
that some relaxation will be made — in particular,
that merit or a continuous obedience will not
be required — but where is the evidence of this?
On the Lord's- side this would be a departure
from the terms of the covenant which • His
immutability forbids, and which would scarcely
consist with the declaration to the young ruler
—Luke X. 28, " This do, and thou shalt live."
On the contrary, it will be required for all time
from us, as it was required of the Saviour in
H is fulfilment of the covenant on our behalf.
It is expressly declared that Christ saves by his
obedience or merit as well as by His sufferings.
" By the righteousness of one the free gift came
upon all." (Eom. v. 18,) " That righteousness
might be imputed to them also." (Rom. iv. 11.)
" By the obedience of one shall many be made

- 46 -

righteous." (Eom. v. 19.) Therefore to those
who do not accept this " gift of righteousness '*
(Eom. V. lY) it only remains that they shall
work it out for themselves.

We come now to another objection, and a still
more plausible one — viz. : that God is love, and
therefore l^e cannot punish men for ever — no
matter how they have failed. But " our Grod is
a consuming fire," and if it be said His infinite
love forbids eternal punishment, it may be
said also that His infinite fire necessitates it.
If it be a difficulty to conceive how he could
punish man on account of his love, it is no less
a difficulty to conceive how he could fail to do
so on account of His fire.

Let us consider this objection a little more
closely. It is said " the severity of the punish-
ment is too great — it is rebuked by the mis-
givings of even human hearts, and shall mortal
man be more just than G-od, or at any rate more
pitiful ? — you condemn, it is said, your own
doctrine by your reluctance to receive it — it
needs no further condemnation."

But we demur to these conclusions. We say,
in the first place, that we cannot measure the
course of divine action in relation to sin by
a human standard. Even though we might
judge aright for the Lord in other matters not
relating to sin, yet it would be extremely unsafe
to say the least, that as regards the punishment

of transgression, we should rely on our power
to do so. We should probably lay down laws
for the love of Grod which he could only obey
at the expense of some other attribute. la our
desire for tenderness towards the sinner we
might go so far as to betray a lurking sympathy
with sin,' or at least an utter ignorance as to its
true nature and proper deserts.

I am aware that when we argue in this way
it is described as "hard reasoning." It is
thought strange that we should seek to
establish the infinity of Grod's wrath rather than
the infinity of His love. But this is scarcely
a true representation of the facts. "We seek
not to establish one infinity rather than
another. We hold that both must stand together
and that no one infinity can swallow up and
nullifv another. If. God's wrath be infinite,
SO also is His love, as is undeniably demonstrated
in the history of the Cross. If any persist in
thinking otherwise — if they entertain the blas-
phemous that Grod is unrighteous who taketh
vengeance — we cannot meet the imputation
better than by the repetition of the solemn
declaration — " As I live, saith the Lord, I have
no pleasure n the death of the wicked that he
dieth." Whatever may be our imperfect, not to
say impious, imaginations on the subject, it is
evident that the punishment of the impenitent
however protracted it may be, can in nowise

. . 48 , . , ^

affect the justice, love, or mercy of Him whose
mercy " reacheth unto the heavens," and who
declares on oath that he has no pleasure in it.

But the tree is known by its fruits, it is said,
and to what purpose is it to say, that God is
love, if his actions fail to demonstrate the fact.
Oan he be truly said to have no pleasure in it if
he be Almighty, and yet permits the wicked to
perish everlastingly ?

Is Grod then to be held accountable for all
that He permits ? Is He responsible in par-
ticular for that which exists in opposition to
His will, e.g., Is He chargeable with all the
accumulated sorrows of this world and the
countless ills to which human flesh is un-
happily heir ? He says He does not afflict
willingly nor grieve the children of men ? He
might, as King Almighty, prevent it all by the
simple utterance of a word, or by the exercise
of his will ; but the fact is he does not, and if
the permission of the one be consistent with
his infinite perfections, why might not the other
also? Why should he be expected to pursue
a course in relation to future punishment, which
it is evident He does not pursue with reference
to present woe ?

But in addition to the sorrow and misery that
is in the world there is the sin which is the fruit-
ful source of it all. Is Grod then to be held
accountable for the sin as well as the sorrow ?

He says he hates sir^and is " of purer eyes than to
behold iniquity," and yet he suffers the sin and
exercises long forbearance towards it ! We are
not called upon now to explain this, we merely
refer to it as an illustration, and say, that it affords
a very practical illustration of the truth, that
God can consistently permit what he does not
approve, and that we cannot reasonably affirm,
that endless punishment is impossible, unless we
base our belief on some better ground than the
love of Grod on the one hand, or his hatred of
sin on the other.

But look at the subject in another light. Study
it in relation to the angels which kept not their
first estate. So far as we know there is no deli"
verance for them. They are described as being
reserved in everlasting chains. Jude 6, and if
Grod's love be not incompatible with the endless
doom inflicted upon, them, why should it be
thought to be so, in relation to the punishment
threatened against us ? Universalists feel the
force of this, and therefore they hold that
sooner or later Satan himself will be associated
with men in the salvation of the cross.

We cannot think so, first, because there is not

the slightest evidence for it ; on the contrary,

the latest vision vouchsafed to us of the State of

the Evil one, represents him as further removed

than ever, from the happiness of the Blessed. It

reveals him to us as receiving at length the ful-

4

50

ness of his righteous reward-*-as being cast into
the fire prepared for him, and tormented therein
day and night foi ever ?

But this is not all — it is impossible that angels
could participate in the salvation of the cross of
Christ. The Scriptures teach us that a Mediator
must possess the same nature with those for
whom he mediates. But Christ took not on him
the nature of angels. He took on him the seed
of Abraham, for " in all things it behoved Him
to be made like unto his brethren." In accord-
ance with this principle, angels are excluded.
The benefits of the Saviour's satisfaction are
limited to the nature which he assumed, and as
a necessary consequence any other sinful nature
not so assumed by a Redeemer, must remain for
ever without redemption.

Nor is this all. We can even see positive
reason why infinite love should dictate the end-
less retribution of the impenitent and the vile.
The love of God has exerted its utmost efforts for
their restoration from evil, and without avail.
It has uttered its voice in the streets and said,
" How long, ye simple ones, will ye love sim-
plicity, and the scorners delight in scorning,
and fools hate knowledge. Turn you at my
reproof, behold, I will pour out my Spirit upon
you, I will make known my words unto you " —
but all to no purpose. It has therefore resigned
the task as hopeless, and turning, away from the

*' .■' ',r,. iv. ■, /. •;:

51

guilty to the good, Infinite love itself says that .
henceforth all its regards must be directed to
them. It must watch exclusively after their
peace and purity, their happiness and safety, and
to this end it is needful that the wicked shall be
excluded. The unholy and unclean must abide
in a place by themselves, rather I should say,
they must share the place prepared for the devil
and his angels.

Another objection is, that universal redemp-
tion implies univeral salvation. But this is a
fallacy. It supposes that redemption is a
synonym for salvation, which is not the case.
The saved are all redeemed ; i)ut the redeemed
are not all saved. Redemption is salvation
provided ; salvation is redemption accepted.

It may be urged fiirther that the argument
proves too much — all admit that men undergo
some penalties for sin. If, therefore, it is unjust
that those who have been redeemed by Christ,
as all have been, should suffer an endless punish-
ment for sin, it is manifestly unjust that they
should suffer at all. It is not possible that G-od
should adopt for a moment, a principle of action
which he could not righteously maintain for
ever.

It is objected by Annihilationists that the
terms " death " and " destruction " mean anni-
hilation e.g.^ Matt. X. 28, where it is written, -
*' Fear him which is able to destroy both soul

■■■■". 6% ■■ . ,

and body in hell." It is said the meaning is, to
annihilate both soul and body in hell. But this ^
is not the case. The terms as used in Scripture
imply continued existence. They are often used "^
in appeal to man's fear of suffering — "Destroy
this temple and in three days I will raise it up,"
yet, though destroyed, that temple was not
annihilated. " In the day that thou eatest thou
shall surely^die," yet Adam lived in death. " The
world that then was, perished," (2 Pet. iii. 6),
yet we are living on it to the present hour. And
we read in Rev. ii. 11 that he that overcometh
shall not be hurt of the second death. Hurt or
injury would not be possible on the supposition
of annihilation, the word " hurt " (adikein) means
to inflict something that is felt, e.g., Luke x. 19,
" I will give you power ... so that nothing
shall by any means hurt you." From these
instances we see how groundless is the theory.
Many other proofs might be adduced, but let
these suffice.

VI. I now proceed to criticize Archdeacon
Farrar's exegetical notes.

Mark iii. 29, it is written : "He that shall
blaspheme against the Holy Grhost hath never
forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damna-
tion." The Archdeacon accepts the rendering
" eternal sin," but he cannot by this means
weaken the testimony. Eternal sin involves
Eternal punishment. The meaning is, " He hath

not forgiveness during the age, i.e., the age
allotted for forgiveness viz., the present age (the
article is emphatic), but is in danger of eternal
sin (without the article.)

The excursus deals next with the terms aion and
aionios (see page 3Y). But in connection with them
the Archdeacon notices St. Augustine's argument,
viz., that etern a punishment must be endless,
because eternal life is endless, the same G-reek
term aionios being applied to both — Mat. xxv.,
49, and says, " this is no argument at all (mark
the reason), because those who press it refuse to
apply it analogously to such texts as : " As in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive." I, however, am not among the
number. There is no difficulty with me ' in
applying it to this text in the fullest and most
unrestricted sense. The universality is com-
plete in both cases. The passage refers to the
general Resurrection, not to Eestoration.

The Archdeacon adds, " our sure and certain
hope of everlasting happiness rests on no such
miserable foundation as the disputed meaning
of a G-reek adjective." This is true of everlasting
happiness and no less true of everlasting punish-
ment, but I should hesitate to apply the terms
*' miserable foundation" to any word used by
God the Holy Ghost.

On the word " kolasis" (see page 39). The Arch-
deacon next says, "Unless my whole nature were

utterly changed, I can imagine no immortality
which would not be abhorrent to me, if it were
accompanied with the knowledge, that millions
and millions of poor suffering wretches, some of
whom on earth I had known and loved, were
writhing in agony without end and without
hope." To which we reply, after premising
that the writhing in agony need not be under-
stood in a material sense, this argues a very
wide divergence between Grod's thoughts and
yours on the subject. But even if such diver-
gence of view as to the deserts of incorrigible
sinners, be compatible with vital faith in G-od
through Christ, as I believe it is, it cannot be
denied that it gives evidence of a weak and
imperfect faith which needs careful cultivation,
before it reaches that perfection which enables
us to say, " Eight eous and true are thy judg-
ments thou king of saints," or to express our-
selves in the words " It is the Lord, let him do
what seemeth him good" — 1 Sam. iii., 18.

But why it may be asked should such a con-
dition be more abhorrent to the Archdeacon
with reference to the next world than a similar
condition with reference to this^ ? How many are
sufferers here both in body and soul to the end
of their days ? And wh}' should they not be
there ? Or even if the contemplation of a life^ of
suffering be abhorrent to his mind, does this
destroy its reality ? Does this abhorrence of it

wipe out its existence, and prove it to be the
groundless creation of a vivid imagination ? I
trow not, and if not, then we hold that it will
be of equally little avail to weaken the force of
evidence for the reality of that which is to come,
to quench the fires of G-e henna, and persuade
men that it is but the airy phantom of a dre am.

The next point to be noted is "If the doctrine
of endless torment be true, it is incredible that
there should be no trace of it in the entire Old
. Testament."

It seems scarcely credible that the Archdeacon
should make such a statement as this which
denies that there is any reference to the subject
in the first covenant of works or in the judicial
sentence, " Thou shall surely die," or in the
Psalms, the Proverbs or the Prophets. But as
already shown, there is such reference. The idea
underlies the whole of the Old Testament Econ'
omy. Of this death, the visible death of the body
is the visible sign and seal, and that the
patriarchs so understood it, is implied in the
emphatic repetition of the significant declaration
" and he died."

But strange to say the Archdeacon objects to
G-en. iii. 15, as supporting the orthodox view. He
asks " how can this be, if Satan triumphs by gain-
ing millions to be his slaves " ? The answer is
Grod reveals the fact, and if it be not understood,
Faith does not press the question, how. But to

■ - 56 -^' '■'-■^/-

most minds there is no difficulty as to the " how "
of the matter, if they accept an illustration from
human victories . The greater the number of
captives, the greater the proof of the victory.
Satan is not to be regarded as a rival conqueror
to the Saviour, but as being himself subjected
with his captives to the irre;^ istible will of the
Son of Man. Victory does not imply the loyalty
of the conquered, nor does the captivity of the
conquered reflect upon the reality of the victor's
conquest.

The Archdeacon cites G-en. xii. 3, which says,
" In thee shall all the families of the earth be
blessed." Yes, blessed ; but not necessarily
saved. Moreover it is written "families" or
" nations" (Gren. xviii. 18), not all the individuals
of each family or nation.

He refers also to Psalm ciii. 9 — " He will not
always be chiding, neither keepeth he his anger
for ever. He retaineth not his anger for ever,
because he delighteth in mercy." This is the
language of the believer who accepts and rejoices
in God's method of putting away sin through
Christ. " He hath not dealt with us after our
sins," and " as far as the east is from the west»
so far hath he put away our iniquity." This
therefore, has no reference to the future. It is
not (as the context proves) an absolute, but a
relative truth. While we may affirm of God's own
people that he is not angry with them for ever,

^ _ ' 61 ^' ■■■■: ' :. ■' '.:■ ■ ,

because they have complied with his will, we
may affirm also of the wicked that he is angry
with them every day.

Psalm cxxxix. 8. " If I make my bed in hell
thou art there," yes, he is there to condemn. It
does not say that he is there to save.

Isaiah Ivii. 16. — " I will not contend for ever,
neither will I be always wroth, for the Spirit
should fail before me and the souls which I have
made." The A 'chdeacaii applies this to the
state of the wicked hereafter, not only "without
ground, but in direct opposition to the context-
It is expressly said of the " humble and contrite
ones " and contrasts their state with that of the
wicked. It concludes with the words " The
wicked are like the troubled sea w^hen it cannot
rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There
is no peace saith my Grod to the wicked " ! !

Isaiah xlix. 9. — " That thou mayest say to the
prisoners, ' G-o forth ' ; to them that are in dark-
ness show yourselves." Here again the context
points out the misapplication. This is a prophecy
of the release of spiritual prisoners during the
present G-ospel dispensation. It is similar to
the passage quoted by the Saviour in the syna-
gogue in Gralilee, of which he said : " This day
is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." There
is not the shadow of a proof to show that it
refers to post Grospel times during which the
door of deliverance will be shut.

Hosea vi. 1. — " Come and let us return unta
the Lord, for He hath torn, and he will heal
us. lie hath smitten and he will bind us up.'^
The present is the day of healing. The Arch-
deacon must show that the passage applies to

a future state. He must show also that in that
future state sinners will be ready to say " Come
and let us return unto the Lord." This is a
necessary condition of being healed in any state.

Hosea xiv. 4. — " I will heal their backsliding,
I will love them freely." Yes, if they return ;
but the incorrigibly wicked will have no desire
to return.

John i. 29. — " The Lamb which taketh away
the sin of the world." He has taken it away ;
but redemption does not imply salvation here,
much less hereafter. Taking awdy the sin of
the world is not obliterating it from the universe.

John iii. 1^. — " God sent not his Son into the
world to condemn the world, but that the world
through him might be saved." Certainly;
because the world was already condemned — As
certainly he came that the world might be saved
— but what if the world would not be saved ?
" I would," said the Son of Man to Jerusalem,
" but ye would not ; therefore, your house is
left unto you desolate."

John iii. 35. — " The Father loveth the Son,
and hath put all things into his hand." Yes ;
but it does not follow that all the things given

59

into his hand — e.g., Jerusalem, would be saved
from destruction. -

• 1 John iv. 14. — " The Father sent the Son ta
be the Saviour of the world." The Archdeacon
translates it the Saviour of the universe, but the
word is " Kosmos," and therefore means the
world — not the universe.

John xii. 32. — " I, if I be lifted up, will draw
all men unto me." Yes ; but not necessarily
with saving effect. All men are undoubtedly
drawn nearer to Grod and Christ, by the satis-
faction made upon the cross. The guilt and
demerit of sin are removed, and the door of
salvation is npw open,' but it does not follow
that all will therefore enter in. Or the mean-
ing may be " I will draw all nations unto me
(G-en. xviii. 18) as opposed to the single nation
of the Jews." In either case it does not imply
universal salvation.

Luke XII. 48. — " He shall be beaten with few
stripes." Yes ; but he shall be beaten, and there
is nothing to prove that " few in number " means
" short in duration."

1 John ii. 2. — "A propitiation for our sins, and
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the
whole world." Yes, a propitiation for them, but
not necessarily a forgiveness of them.

Acts iii. 21. — "The restitution of all things."^
Yes* ; the new heavens and the new earth (Eev.
xxi. 1). To refer it to the restitution of all men

would be to make G-od contradict himself, and
we may not expound one part of Scripture so
that it shall be repugnant to the other.

Eph. i. 10. — "That he might gather together
in one all things in Christ, which are in heaven
and which are in earth. This is limited by the
expressions " in Christ," " in Heaven " and " in
Earth." There is nothing to show that the
gathering will extend to things in Hell.

Phil. ii. 10, 11. — " That at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of things in Heaven and
things in earth, and things under the earth."
This does refer to things under the earth ; but
it is under the earth they bow, and hot in
heaven.

Col. i. 19, 20. — " By him to reconcile all things
to himself, whether they be things in earth or
things in heaven." Yes ; but you cannot extend
the reconciliation to things in Hell.

Eom. viii. 19-24.. — " The earnest expectation
of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of
of the sons of G-od." Yes ; but it says nothing
of the manifestation of those who are not the
sons of Grod.

Rom. V. 18. — "The free gift came upon all
men unto justification of life." Yes ; but the
" all " is limited in this verse by the context.
This is quite common in Scripture, e.g., " all men
came unto him," " all the world should be
taxed," " allJudea and allJerusalem," these must

V'

61

from the nature of each case be limited. Such
limitation is always implied when other Scrip-
tures referring to the same subject require it, e.g*.,
— It is everywhere taught that faith is necessary
to justification. "When, therefore, it is said
that ' all are justified,' the meaning must be "all
believers," because it ie vrritten, ' By him all that
believe are justified.' " So here, " all " cannot
be taken in an absolute sense. The man Christ
Jesus, a;t least, must be excepted, and therefore
in the light of the context, the meaning is, all
connected with Christ, are they upon whom the
gift came.

Eom. xi. 32. — " G-od hath concluded all in un-
belief that he might have mercy upon all." But
what if they would not accept the mercy ?

Rom. xiv. 9. — " That he might be the Lord
both of the dead and the living." Therefore the
dead must continue that he may be Lord of the
dead.

1 Cor. XV. 22. — " As in Adam all die, so in
Christ shall all be made alive." Universal
death is the result of Adam's conduct. So the
general resurrection is the result of the Saviour's
action, but the general resurrection does not
imply universal salvation-

1 Cor. XV. 25. — " He must reign till he hath
put all things under his feet." Yes ; but under
his feet, is not, exalted to heaven.

1 Cor. XV. 26. — " The last enemv that shall be

62 >

destroyed is death." Yes, but destruction is not
extinction (see page 51.) The word rendered
destroyed means, " rendered powerless to harm."

1 Cor. XV. 28.—" That God may be all in all."
Yes, when the Devil, and Death and Hades are
cast out, and cast into the lake of fire. (Rev.
XX. 11-14.) ' ^

1. Tim. ii. 4. — " Who willeth all men to be
saved. Yes ; but he does not obtain all that he
wills, as the cross of Calvary proves. Matt,
xxvi. 39.

1 Tim. iv. 10. — " God, who is the Saviour of
all men, specially of those that believe." Words
which draw a clear distinction between the
manner in which he is the Saviour of those
who believe and those who do not believe. In
him salvation is possible to those who do not
believe, during the present season only, but
salvation is actual to those who believe."

1 Tim. ii. 6. — " A ransom for all." Yes, but
not accepted by all.

Titus ii. 11-12. — " The grace of God is saving
to all men." The passage may also be translated
"The grace of God hath appeared to all men,
bringing salvation." But accepting the ordinary
translation, it is true in a possible, not in an
actual, sense — simply because it would make
God contradict himself

Heb. ii. 14. — " That he might destroy him that
had the power of death, that is, the devil."

63

Destroy means to bring to nought, to render
powerless — it does not imply extinction.

Heb. ii. 8. — " Thou hast put all things in sub-
jection under his feet." Yes ; but universal
. subjection does not imply universal salvation.

Heb. ii. 9. — " That he should taste death for
every man." Universal redemption is taught
here, not universal salvation.

Rev. V. 13. — "Every creature which is in
. heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth,
and such as are in the sea, and all that are in
them I heard saying, " Blessing, and honour, and
glory, and power, etc." Yes ; but as before, this
does not extend to things in hell.

Eev. xxi. 4-5. — " Grod shall wipe away all
tears from their eyes." Yes ; but it is from their
eyes, viz., the eyes of the saved ; " and there
shall be no more death among them ; neither
any more pain." Nothing here referring to
those in hell.

Rev. xxii. 3. — " And there shall be no more
curse " — among his servants, as the context
shows.

^, Rev. XX. 14. — " And death and hell were cast
into the lake of fire." Yes ; cast out of the
earth, but not therefore extinguished.

Here the texts end. They teach universal
redemption, but give no countenance to uni-
versal salvation. The Archdeacon, however,
asks again whether the predicted triumph of

64

Christ, and the universality of his kingdom are
consistent with the popular doctrine that only
the few are to be saved, and we answer, they must
be, provided the popular doctrine is based on
Christ's own words. For proof that it is so based,
it is only needful to quote again Luke xiii. 24
where it is written, that our Lord testified,
saying, "Many, I say unto you, will seek to
enter in and shall not be able."

But we answer again, the question is not
whether few or many shall be saved, but
whether there are any at all who shall not be
s aved. The orthodox position would be estab-
lished, if it could be proved that no more
than one only had made himself an heir of
everlasting destrviction, and that there is one,
at least, who shall reach this unenviable des-
tinction seems clear from what is said of the
" Son of perdition."

Even the Archdeacon himself seems un-
willingly to admit that there are some who are
in this unhappy condition. He frankly says
that he is unable to adopt the Universalist view
because, he says, there are one or two passages—
which seem to make it unwise to speak dog-
matically on a matter which God has not clearly
revealed. He does not tell us what these pass-
ages are — a course which is hardly consistent
with fairness, since he has given such publicity
to texts on the other side. But I wish to observe

65

that by this admission, he manifestly gives up the
whole question. He acknowledges his position to
be unproved, as the very title of his book indicates.
Here then is a strong confirmation of the ortho-
dox view. If Archdeacon Farrar confesses his
inability to disprove it, there must be strong
reasons for believing it to be true. We recognize
them in what Christ says: "They shall not see
life" ; " They shall not be able to enter in."

On these two statements alone, I am willing to
lean the whole controversy. " Hath he said, and
shall he not do it. Hath he spoken, and shall
he not bring it to pass." Men may now, as of
old, prefer to listen to the voice of the charmer
who, with a plausible duplicity ,^nd devilish
malignity, endeavours, through means of some
weak, but otherwise worthy agent, to persuade
them that the words of the living G-od, the great
Creator " Thou shalt surely die " bear a mean-
ing the very opposite of that which they were
intended signify. But as surely as they allow
themselves to be influenced by that deceptive
voice, so surely shall they taste the bitterness of
their choice, as our first parents did ; and unless
they lay hold by faith on that eternal life, which
is so graciously offered to them and all mankind
in Christ, " without doubt, they shall perish ever-
lastingly."